Should We Have A God

A rational perspective of God

The word God is rarely defined with any degree of accuracy. When asked, the majority of individuals resort to repeating timeworn phrases that merely promote a particular religious point of view. In fact, even scholars are uncertain of the source of the word, let alone its definition. (See the etymology of the word at the end of the text.) Most rely on citing the various religious perspectives to convey some idea as to the meaning of the word. However, in concert with the major religions of the world, the word God can be defined as follows: a supernatural entity conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the cosmos. Some overt polytheistic religions such as Hinduism regard the multitude of separate deities as various aspects of an underlying One that, in the case of Hinduism, is Brahma, the universal or cosmic base. Pantheists, for the most part, view the Cosmos as the be-all and end-all of existence. In their case, God seems synonymous with Nature although few venture to explain the connection between the material realm and the entity that gives rise to it. This view is not incompatible with those who hold to an anthropomorphic (humanlike) deity such as the basic Christian or Muslim perspective. The latter merely disdains to define their Allah beyond the name and attributes that, when considered objectively, put forth definitive human traits. To say that one's God is loving, vengeful and the like assumes mortal emotions, hence an anthropomorphic deity of sorts. However, these fine points of divergence do not negate the definition proposed above. God still is portrayed as a supernatural entity that functions as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the cosmos. This becomes more evident when we analyze the definition more closely.

The term supernatural merely means that which is beyond the range of our natural senses. Extra-natural would be a better definition of the word. The overwhelmingly major part of the cosmos is supernatural. Physicists deal primarily with this "supernatural" realm. They dissect matter with devices that peer beyond the reach of our senses, into the depths of the subatomic world. There visible matter vanishes into "invisible" particles that, in turn, emanate as "energies" that are best described as perceived movement occurring in a given region of interstellar space. They move and, in doing so, produce tangible results. Indeed, exotic names are given to these "energies" that, while allowing physicists to catalog them, does not really tell us what they are. However, what this does prove is that a "supernatural" realm does exist. Not the supernatural realm of mythology but that of our developing science.

Our definition portrays God as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator of the cosmos. These qualifications would be fulfilled if we assume that God is the cosmos and the cosmos is the end-all and be-all of existence. It would be perfect because, as the only existence, it would be its own standard for comparison. If only one exists, it is the most perfect form of its existence. Moreover, given that the cosmos encompasses all that exists, it is omnipotent and omniscient - omnipotent because it is the source of all power or potency, and omniscient because knowing or knowledge is a function or product existing within its bounds. To assume otherwise, one who have to postulate that something exists beyond the cosmos - a concept negated by our definition.

At this point, it might be best to explain that the cosmos encompasses more than the visible material universe. It incorporates all of interstellar space and all that exists within interstellar space. Assuming the existence of multiple dimensions, those would exist within the cosmos, as would multiple universes. Otherwise, we would be forced to declare a limit to interstellar space and project an existing nothing state beyond its boundaries. This would raise the dilemma of interstellar space and all that it enfolds existing or arising from an absolute void. Evolving a something from nothing is incomprehensible and tests the limits of logic. It would be more conceivable that interstellar space is the basis of all existence. It would form the "something" from which everything else evolved. But is that premise sustainable?

As our sciences have discovered thus far, interstellar space is not an empty void but an incredible ocean beset with an almost endless variety of currents. These currents comprise the energies our physicists probe and seek to identify and catalog. The intriguing result is that, if this abundance of currents move about the cosmos, interstellar space is the medium for that movement and, accordingly, must have some unique "substance" that is not material in form. It is a "something" that we materially cannot define. The best we can do is acknowledge its presence and continue to analyze the energies or currents it enfolds. This would resolve the dilemma of things arising from nothing. It would be a conclusion that logic accepts.

Essentially, most theories regarding the original and existence of the material universe rely upon the interaction of various forms of energy. Many successfully project the future potential of those energies and have afforded us the ability to manipulate them to the advancement in many fields of endeavor from physics to medicine to the benefit of humanity. In these endeavors, the underlying nature of interstellar space is little more than a curiosity, succumbing to the task of deciphering how the various fundamental energies interact. However, understanding the nature of interstellar space is critical to understanding of how the cosmos functions as a whole. When we accept its presence as an integrating factor in the operation of the material universe, our perspective alters from the finite to the infinite. We can better comprehend how the energies we explore and catalog interact within that presence of interstellar space.

A new model of the cosmos must encompass a basic cohesiveness that alters the way we envision life. This model can be defined by the following premise: the cosmos is an infinite presence whose perpetual movement gives rise to material forms. This does not attempt to explain the nature of that cosmic presence, but simply postulates it as the underlying reality of interstellar space. It is as if interstellar space is the pure water within an endlessly active ocean. Its currents interact and give rise to all experiences of materialness. Just as waves upon an ocean possess dimensions and interact with each other, the currents within our cosmic ocean interact to elicit the sensation of change. Personally, we proceed from one existing state of being to another and, in the process, elicit a sequential experience of evolving life. Our lives become governed by a timeline wherein we proceed from a yesterday through today to a new tomorrow. Our contact with the energies of our environment alters the energies of our beings and we experience change. This is the basis of our awareness of being alive within a body that functions in an external world. In essence, our beings are configurations of energy existing within the presence of interstellar space. When we encounter other configurations or energies, the energy patterns of our beings are changed. Thus, we become conscious of our existence and conscious of the outer material realm. We are like complex eddies with the ocean of cosmic space.

If the above appears confusing, consider how we view our material universe. We never experience anything directly. Instead, a form of energy interacts with our bodies and that interaction is relayed to our brains. Light reflected from an object strikes the rods and cones within our eyes and this interaction sends bioelectric impulses through our optic nerves to our brains. These bioelectric impulses are then reassembled to construct the "images" we see. This process is about the same for all of our senses. Thus, we experience the external and our internal body second-hand. We have no direct contact with the material reality. This holds true for the other more subtle energies that invade our bodies and our brains. Moreover, we experience only contrasts. A "this" differs from a "that" and, through that difference, we distinguish the "this" from the "that". Light contrasts with darkness and through that contrast both light and darkness become known to us. If we existed in total darkness from birth, we would not be aware of light. By extension, it is impossible to experience the "substance" of interstellar space for it has no contrasting alternative. Thus, interstellar space, the root of all existence, appears as an unfathomable void. In essence, it is the "body" of the cosmos and the energies that swirl within that body are its "consciousness" or "soul".

As implied earlier, the cosmos is an appropriate God. As the sum of all existence, it is the creator, sustainer and ultimate ruler of the material universe but not in the traditional sense of an anthropological (humanlike) being. Humanlike traits are entity specific. They apply to our beings because of the particular configuration of the energies that make up those beings. Only entities with similar configurations of energy would exhibit similar traits. In a sense, this cosmic God differs from Nature in that it is greater than the material realm. Nature is merely a part of God. Moreover, since consciousness is a function of cosmic energy, it is reasonable to project a form of consciousness to the cosmos as a whole. However, as with other human traits, this cosmic consciousness should not be construed as humanlike. How we relate to it is entirely another matter and one best left to personal choice.

Author's Note: Although the above perspective is one held by the Society of Esseans International, it is presented as a personal point of view.

Etymology of the word God:

"god (gρd). Also 3-4 godd. [Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG. got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. goð, guð neut. and masc., pl. goð, guð neut. (later Icel. pl. guðir masc.; Sw., Da. gud), Goth. guÞ (masc. in sing.; pl. guÞa, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *guđo^m neut., the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word. The neuter sb., in its original heathen use, would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus. Another approximate equivalent of deus in OTeut. was *ansu-z (Goth. in latinized pl. form anses, ON. ρss, OE. Ós- in personal names, ésa genit. pl.); but this seems to have been applied only to the higher deities of the native pantheon, never to foreign gods; and it never came into Christian use.

The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *gubo^m implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Aryan roots of the required form (both *g_lheu, with palatal aspirate): one meaning ‘to invoke’ (Skr. hū), the other ‘to pour, to offer sacrifice’ (Skr. hu, Gr. χέειν, OE. yéotan YETE v.). Hence *g_lhutó-m has been variously interpreted as ‘what is invoked’ (cf. Skr. puru-hūta ‘much-invoked’, an epithet of Indra) and as ‘what is worshipped by sacrifice’ (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense ‘sacrificed to’ as well as in that of ‘offered in sacrifice’). Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the actual use of the word, ‘an object of worship’.